Michael Nunn vs Bernard Hopkins

Nailed it, John.

 

Nunn early in his career did constantly move to the point where TV executives complained he was skilled but very boring.
In an effort to attract attention In his fight with Knox he stood his ground more and traded punches.
Prior to that he was always moving. Watch his fight vs Alex Ramos because that was how he fought early in his career.
You also forget that Hopkins had a struggle with Mercado in the first fight even being dropped twice in that bout.
Frank Tate was an unbeaten world champion who had also had won a gold medal in the Olympics. He was a very good pro.
The Wright fight was at lightheavy as well as the Tarver bout. And Wright looked horrible at that weight.
Lets face facts. Hopkins reign at middleweight was weak in competition. Sure he had longevity but that's about it.
His biggest win was against a fighter whose prime was at welterweight.
As a matter of fact Nunn knocking out Kalambay in ONE ROUND is more of an impressive win at middleweight then any of Hopkins wins at middleweight is it not?
SPEED was Hopkins kryptonite. And he had a hard time with it.
Chad Dawson was the closest fighter that fought like Nunn and what happened when Hopkins fought him?
He lost.
When he fought Jones what happened ? He lost because Jones was too fast.
And if we are being completely honest Kalambay beats Hopkins at middleweight.
His destruction of Tate was a masterclass. He,totally dominated an unbeaten fighter and made Tate look like an amateur.
Nobody wanted to fight Nunn. Hearns,Leonard,Duran all wanted nothing to do with Nunn and for good reason.
If Nunn would have just stayed away from his hometown and stayed with the Goosens he would have had a much greater career. But he didn't.
And Hopkins does deserve points for being disciplined and always coming into fights ready as it is hard to stay at the top for as long as he did. And he was very skilled. And I would even agree with you boxing wise and in boxing fundamentals he was more skilled then Nunn.
But Nunn had so much natural talent it wasn't even funny. He did things that really can't be taught.
When Nunn beat Tinley that's when I knew he was for real. And Tinley was a good middleweight and Nunn beat him easily which shocked me.

 

Agreed.

Or if Nunn switched allegiance and signed with DKP. He would have been fed a bunch of softies and could stay with that style that suited him much better---a cutie pie.

The fact he could change styles and still be effective is incredible. Who else does that? Successfully? Usually when it happens it becomes a rapid slide downhill.

Another overlooked and sensational ko was when early Nunn 1 punched another tough hombre==Curtis Parker. So it just wasn't the Kalambay fight where he sparked guys.

 

Man I wanted to see the Nunn vs Kalambay fight go rounds and was shocked when Nunn knocked him out.

 

I am extremely familiar with Nunn's career. He went back to that boxing and moving against the limited Barkley and wasn't very impressive at all. He lost all that momentum he'd built with that win over Sumbu and never ever regained it. If he'd stayed impressive he would have been more marketable.

It's irrelevant as Hopkins was about half a decade from his peak. He was also weight drained and corrected matters next time out. Hopkins kept improving while Nunn sorta went the other way. Dream matches are peak for peak and i'd hope no-one would be silly enough to think the Hopkins that fought Mercado is the most functional version.

Nunn I'd call a very good pro. Tate would have been just another challenger in Hopkins reign.

I named them as they are southpaws which is important here. Hopkins showed his wares against them multiple times. When you reign for a decade you are going to beat some good fighters. You are also going to subdue guys that may have been able to rise themselves if not for you.

The other thing is that Hopkins beat them emphatically again and again and again. He was barely losing any rounds.

Douglas knocking out Tyson is better than any of Holmes or Holyfield's wins. Do you think Buster would beat them? Barkley had a better win at 160 than Nunn, did he beat Nunn? Hagler's best wins some would say are over welterweights and a lightweight. Monzon had some good wins over welters too.

Emanuel Steward called the KO a fluke - one guy threw a punch with his eyes shut while the other guy got caught with it, with his eyes shut. It's a complete outlier even if eminently impressive.

Totally disagree. The guy lost 1 fight in 15 years yet there's kryptonite about? He has an Achilles heel? During his reign, when he was at his best he barely lost rounds. He was half a decade from his best when he fought Jones and tho Jones would be favored best for best he'd be favored against most anyone. During his prime years he was otherworldly at times.

Speaking of which Jones completely outclassed Toney who had of course axed Michael. People always say Toney is suss against speed too but there he was standing over Nunn.

Hopkins was 24! years deep when he fought Dawson and 47yo. Nunn hadn't even been fighting for 6 years around that career point. You didn't want to discuss Winky and Tarver as they weren't at 160 yet here you are with Dawson.

Already addressed.

Nah. I would have liked to see him fight Nunn again actually.

You are casting shade on Hopkins reign yet saying this about Frank Tate? I shudder to think what Hopkins would have done to him.

He lost momentum at the wrong time. Who knows what might have happened but i think it was apparent he was missing that something. Boxing is full of them and we've all been caught out championing one. You think they just can't miss and yet they do. Something is missing.

Yes good summation. You do need some talent too to do the sort of things he did. Nunn had loads of talent but as i say there was something more needed.

He was talented, for sure. He'd be an awkward fight for virtually everyone but i just don't see him winning as many of them as some.

 

Random fun fact by Chris Eubank snr? GO!

 

You are making a case for legacy. This is head to head and not legacy.

Nunn on points for me. The outcome depends on whether Bhop could stop Nunn late as Toney did who caught Michael with his sunday punch. I do not think Bhop would be able to do that.

 

Not legacy - styles and H2H effectiveness.

 

H2H effectiveness: The fighter Hopkins fought that most resembled Nunn was Roy Jones in terms of handspeed, movement and reflexes. Hopkins lost a wide decision in that one.

I think Hopkins never beat anybody as good Nunn at 160, yet he lost against a lesser fighter in Jermain Taylor.

 

Great post and great counter points. Enjoy debating with you.

Fact of the matter is Kalambay better then anyone Hopkins defended his title against. And Kalambay lasted less then 1 round with Nunn.
And it was a counter left hand that caught Kalambay.

Nunn vs Barkley bout was when Bob Arum threw Nunn under the bus and he did it on purpose.
Nunn was never close to losing that fight at anytime.
It was an uneven performance at times but Nunn won.
Bob was making money with the Duran-Leonard-Hearns show. Nunn didn't fit in and people were starting to want to see Nunn challenge one of those 3. And I'm a Hearns fan and Nunn at that time would have been too much for those 3. They didn't want to fight Nunn.
So Arum gets on HBO on the post fight and says Iran really won that fight which was ridiculous because he didn't. Arum didn't want Nunn near Hearns,Leonard, or Duran.
Jones beats up Hopkins prime for prime everyday.
People forget he injured his hand in the first fight and Hopkins still couldn't do anything.
Haglers most complete performance was when he destroyed Sibson and then finished Hamasho off the second time.
De La Hoya won rounds against Hopkins and Echols in the first fight dropped Hopkins although it wasn't counted.
And Robert Allen was giving Hopkins the business the first fight until Hopkins bailed.
And Frank Tate was a much better pro then Mercado and that can't even be argued. Put Tate in with 90% of Hopkins opponents and he beats them all.
And the Toney vs Nunn fight Nunn was winning that fight even though he was not at his best. And by that time make no mistake Nunn was not at his best and yes that is Nunns fault.
And who besides Roy Jones would you say that Hopkins fought that was as good as Toney during Hopkins reign? Nobody.
So the best middleweight that Hopkins faced was Jones and he lost. And it wasn't close.
I can't think if one fighter that Hopkins beat in his reign that was truly great except for Tito who was up 2 classes. De La Hoya maybe?
Hopkins reign was long but it was weak.
Nunn was done the moment he knocked Kalambay out. That was his downfall. And it was his fault.
Prime Nunn was vs Tate. Moving in and out. Combinations.
Watch that fight and then watch Toney fight and see the difference and its night and day. Toney fight he didn't really move. And it cost him.

 

And to answer your question about Buster Douglas.
Holmes best win was vs Norton in my opinion.
Buster was a funny fighter. All the talent in the world but he would never apply himself. And at times would quit.
He caught Tyson at the right time at the right place and he seized the opportunity. That was Tyson's fault.

 

Yeah it was fun exchanging opinion with you, absolutely. I think we have both shot our best wad and are starting to go in circles so will leave it at what we have posted. In summing up i rate Hopkins a lot more highly than you and Nunn a bit lower tho not dramatically. It's all good - till next time

 

Yes Holmes best win was Norton i think. Buster's win of course was higher. I agree with everything in this post.

 

At both of their best at the weight, (Middleweight) I see this fight
being a repeat of Hopkins fight against Roy Jones Jr.
Where Hopkins couldn't get any offense going because of Jones
overwhelming advantages of speed.
Against Nunn, Hopkins disadvantages also would include
reach , and Nunn's south paw stance.
Nunn cruises to a unanimous dec.